Interesting that the judge believed that because the SPCA inspector made no seizures that that means his opinion is discredited.

Animal cruelty legislation (at least in BC) permits SPCAs to give notices rather than make seizures. How can a court say that giving notices rather than making seizures means that a breeder isn't a puppymill? In my opinion, it means that it is a puppymill in the process of being told to improve or else.

Does this ruling mean that an SPCA can be sued for calling a breeder a puppymill unless it makes a seizure?

Because the Ontario court has said that Paws-R-Us is not a puppymill, in spite of credible evidence that showed it sold sick dogs and it kept dogs in sub-standard conditions, SPCAs may want to stop naming breeders as puppymills on their websites and to the media.

SPCAs may want to challenge the ruling by funding Dixon's appeal of the ruling.